The current currents don't mean the American food business will change much. The one thing going for petro-powered, fertilizer-enhanced, hormone-laced, concentration camp raised food: it's efficient to grow and properly preserved it has a helluva shelf life. Profits follow. Large-scale agriculture and food production is closely tied to every major environmental issue of our time: forest cutting in the tropics, water use, energy use, pesticides, over-fishing, soil loss, climate change, population growth. That means any change will be rebuffed as too costly, meddling with business innovation, etc. In the U.S, our petroleum/fertilizer/agribusiness axis is powerful, rich and dominant in a bunch of U.S. states with tiny populations but two Senators each. You think biodiesel or corn ethanol is overly subsidized? Try taking on the corn, beef, soybean, or pork industry. Consumers are far more likely to be effective here than any government agency or do-gooder lawsuits.
The field and pasture are wide open for greentech investment and innovation. There's been some work done on turning manure into methane, but little on recapture of fertilizer in runoff or improving the archaic hydroponic farms or protein production that does not require hundreds of bushels of corn or soybeans. You want a comprehensive look at allthw areas of U.S. "industrial farming" that need changing, check out the Pew Foundation report. You don't imagine any change will come from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, do you? Their main job is subsidizing the existing agribusiness structure. You waiting for subsidies to organic tomato growers? Forget it.
[poll id="124"]